DiSA Briefing Paper 13
Pilot Peer Mentoring Scheme
Dr Arinola Adefila, Coventry University
Overview
A number of mentoring schemes run at departmental or course level across the
University; many of these are unconnected to other University services and are
essentially informal. The aim of this study was to explore students' attitudes to
formal mentoring schemes coordinated centrally by the University. The Mentors
were screened and selected for their strong academic capabilities. Mentors were
also paid for a requisite ten hours of contact time with mentees per week.
Rationale:
Mentoring schemes are used in many different contexts to support new members
transitioning into a community of practice (Wenger, 1998). In academic contexts,
particularly at University level, students benefit from the acculturalisation process
provided by more experienced students, academic staff who take time to explain
procedures and expectations, as well as professional service staff who pass on advice
and information (Eby, et al 2008; Kogler Hill et al 1989). However, mentoring
schemes can be least effective where support is inconsistent, access to mentors are
restricted and information/advice is scant or unreliable. It is therefore pertinent that
existent schemes are effective so students reap the full benefits of becoming
gradually accustomed to the academic rigour and work ethic of University life
Ashwin, 2003). The scheme began as the Disparities in Student Attainment project
began to generate data which suggested that students who had good relationships
within the University and “knew how” the systems and processes affected their
learning and grades achieved better than students who did not have such social and
cultural capital.
Generation of Evidence:
The scheme was developed using a peer mentoring model which encourages
relational and developmental learning; based on the principle that mentoring is an
opportunity for “someone’s hindsight to become another’s foresight” (Chinese
proverb). The mentors were trained by the mentoring coordinator and had ongoing
weekly support. The intervention was introduced in the middle of the first semester
and ran until the end of the second semester. Students in year one were invited to
participate as mentees and they were randomly placed in groups of ten and matched
to the high achieving third year student mentors. More than eighty first year
students signed up for the programme from a range of ethnic backgrounds. The
intervention was evaluated in stages, first by the mentors involved in the
programme on a bi-monthly basis and then by mentees and mentors at the end of
the programme. The mentors gave reflective accounts of their experiences in a 500
piece essay and attended a focus group to discuss and analyze the pilot programme
and how it could be embedded effectively within the University.
Research findings/ New Evidence:
The programme was structured and formalised for the mentors but assumptions
that the mentees will be incentivised by the potential to improve their academic
skills were wrong. The mentees did not attend the mentoring sessions unless they
perceived “direct extrinsic benefits” will ensue, for example, support preparing for
an exam, tips for writing an essay or other “tangible”, but short term academic
successes. Less than 10% of the mentees attended all the sessions, this subset
reported the scheme helped them improve in areas they had struggled; particularly
they highlighted the most useful elements of the programmes were the study skills
and signposting. The most engaged students also asked a lot of questions and were
keen to seek ways of acculturalisation; it was important to them that their mentors
were high achievers who could support their own learning.
On the other hand, the majority of the students were satisfied with the “tips”
offered by the mentors to prepare for their exams or revision of past questions for
tests or assignments. These students did not benefit from the relational,
developmental process designed to support students “learn to learn” effectively.
The mentors where disappointed the scheme did not incentivise the mentees in a
structured format. They were sure the first year students would have benefitted a
lot more from the sessions if they had been obliged to attend. However, mentors
reported how their own skills had developed as they had to learn to “teach”. One
student said the scheme made him “appreciate lecturers more, it is to engage
students”.
Outcomes/implications for policy and practice:
The findings suggest the kind of developmental mentoring the scheme sought to establish is
best achieved when coordinated centrally and linked to incentives for mentees as well as
mentors. Gannon and Dear (2010) suggest that “Mentoring does not exist detached from
the social system within which practices and meanings are constructed”; consequently they
propose models need to be aligned with the ethos of the community. To achieve this
connection with socially constructed meaning for first year students, the scheme should
have adopted a much more formal approach, which is introduced to new students as soon
as they arrive. It appears such an approach would have supported the students to
understand the acculturalisation process for University life – settling into new surroundings,
accommodation, meeting new friends, etc; is not separate from the academic processes of
learning new modes of communication for presentation, assessment and skills of the
community of their chosen profession. Only a few self motivated students were interested in
adopting the skills that made the third year students successful, they were prepared to
engage during the “extra” mentoring sessions not just for short term benefits but because
they wanted to be high achievers.
References/Bibliography
Ashwin, P. 2003. Peer Support: Relations Between the Context, Process and
Outcomes for the Students Who Are Supported Instructional Science, 31, 159-173
Eby, L. T., Allen, T. D., Evans, S. C., Ng, T. W. H., & DuBois, D. 2008 Does Mentoring
Matter? A Multidisciplinary Meta-Analysis Comparing Mentored and Non-Mentored
Individuals Journal of Vocational Behavior Volume 72, Issue 2, April 2008, Pages 254267 Volume 72, Issue 2, April 2008, Pages 254-267
Gannon, A. and Dear, D. 2010. Effective Mentoring LTS Event University of
Cambridge
Kogler Hill, S.E., Bahniuk, M.H., Dobos, J., & Rouner, D. 1989. Mentoring and Other
Communication Support in the Academic Setting. Group and Organization Studies,
14(3), 355-368.
Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity.
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press